Friday, 24 February 2017

The complaint

On Saturday, Feb 18, we were surprised by Correio da Manhã, informing us all that the McCann legal team was requesting, or had
requested the annulment of the ruling (acórdão) of the Supreme Justice Court because it
considered it frivolous (leviano) “because it was not possible for the
Public Prosecutor to obtain sufficient evidence of crimes by the
appellants”.

We, like everyone else, were caught by surprise. The
surprise being that we, like everyone else, thought the Supreme Justice Court ruling of
Jan 31 2017, had put an end, once and for all, to all legal business of
the McCann v Amaral trial as we said in our post “Square One”.

We even said that “this is the first time hearing of a Supreme Justice Court being contested”, that’s how surprised we were.

Once
we found out that it was possible to request an annulment, we started to doubt that frivolity would be the legal grounds for such a
request.

“An annulment can only be considered on points of law, which would never include frivolity as an allegation.In
no way do we believe that frivolity may be invoked regarding the
explanation of what a shelving of an investigation process means, about
three Supreme Court judges when writing a structured and impartial
decision which is available to read in its entirety and due context.”Finally,
it is possible the judges will consider the frivolity allegation as
defamatory and take legal action against the couple.”

2. The mechanism

We didn’t even think it was possible to contest a Supreme Justice Court acórdão.

We knew that a decision by this court cannot be appealed.

What we didn’t know is that it could be annulled.

Stopping
to think about it, it does make sense that such a mechanism exists, in
this court and in every other one, whereby a citizen is able to defend him or herself against
possible technical errors.

But if we understand that such a
mechanism exists and then it makes sense it is possible to be used at the level of 1st Instances Courts, due
to the inexperience of younger judges, it seems unthinkable for such
a thing to be used at the Appeal Court level.

Really not seeing how experienced judges, as those are in these courts, would make technical errors.

If we think that about Appeal Courts, then the reader can guess our opinion about that happening at the Supreme Court.

They
say that only death and taxes are certain and we would say that the
Supreme Justice Court not making a technical mistake is as close to
certainty as one can get.

But the mechanism is there, and if it’s there it can be used and that’s what the McCanns did, they used it.

3. The complaint

The
English speaking media decided to give the issue a very significant
amount of attention.

What
that paper didn’t report on was the ‘not cleared’ detail of the
acórdão. That was only known on Feb 7 and after the article above the
Guardian has remained silent about the McCanns.

One could not
help notice that it was the Daily Mail that opened the hostilities on
the British side and it was the one that closed it.

The Telegraph, that published the last article on the McCann complaint, was just a
copy of the Mail’s article.

The Mail, seemed to be the one that had exclusive access to the 9-page complaint:

“The
couple's fight-back was laid out in a nine-page complaint revealed
today, which was lodged with the Supreme Court last Friday in a bid to
invalidate its ruling rejecting the McCanns' libel appeal against Amaral
and the makers of a TV documentary based on his book.The
document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and
and her colleague Ricardo Correia, says: 'The appellants understand the
archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient
evidence had been collected to show the 'arguidos' had not committed any
crime.'They said the removal of the McCanns' 'arguido' status
had legally-binding connotations and claimed the Supreme Court judges'
argument it could be easily altered 'lacked foundation.'Accusing
them of acting 'frivolously' and contradicting themselves with their
statements about the reasons for the 2008 probe archive, they added: 'It
cannot be stated that it is not acceptable that the archiving of the
case is considered the equivalent to proof of innocence.'”

It confirms that the Supreme Justice Court was accused of frivolity.

And it now reveals that the Supreme Justice Court is explicitly accused of contradicting itself.

We have read the acórdão attentively and fail to see any contradiction by the court.

We
then said that saying “He made that clear in his book, Maddie: The
Truth Of The Lie, written soon after he was hauled off the case in 2008
and took early retirement. He uses evidence garnered in the police
investigation to question the kidnap theory and pin suspicion squarely
on the McCanns” was not compatible with saying in the same article this:
“Few will weep tears for Amaral, seeing an angry man locked up in his
own bitter and baseless theories.”

Mr Couzens just says the
McCanns accuse the Supreme Justice Court of being contradictory and doesn’t even give a
hint as to where that is supposed to have happened in the acórdão.

4. The accusation

To accuse a Supreme court, of whatever country, of technical incompetence is quite extraordinary.

A
Supreme Court is not made up of a bunch of judges who one day decided
to get together to form a band and because of a lack of musical
instruments at the time decided to set up a court instead. A
Supreme one to boot.

In
Portugal, after a law degree and applying for it, one enters the
Judiciary Studies Centre (CEJ – Centro de Estudos Judiciários).

Two years there and an internship of 10 months and when approved, one begins career as a judge.

For
16 to 20 years one will be a judge of a lower court. Then s/he can move
forward, if one has the necessary requirements, and if approved transit to one of
the 5 Appeal courts.

After 10 years in the Appeal Courts one can progress to the Supreme Justice Court.

So, a minimum of 26 years of experience in courts before being a judge in the Supreme Justice Court. And a lot of filters to get there.

To
accuse a collective of 3 judges of a Supreme Justice Court of technical
incompetence by frivolity is, we would say, folly. Not even audacious
but borderline crazy.

But to accuse the Supreme Justice Court of not knowing all what means legally to be an arguido, is not only defamatory but really very insulting.

The arguido status is to the Portuguese law what addition is to math. Very, very basic.

Telling
the Supreme Justice Court that they don’t know what being an arguido or stopping being one entails, is like a 1st
grader telling a University Math professor that he doesn’t know how to
add up 2 and 2.

The biggest difference is that one can say that a
1st grader does not possess the capability of judging the insult he’s
professing, so he’s forgiven.

That cannot be with a lawyer with years of experience when behaving like a snotty 1st grader.

We
certainly are not literate when it comes to law, be it Portuguese or
British.

We don’t pretend to know more than any legal professional and
the opinions we write here on legal matters are obviously subject to
correction.

In fact, we welcome all corrections because we, in no way,
wish to mislead anyone.

However, even we are able to debunk the lifting of the arguido status versus being cleared question.

We just ask one question: who is possible to be considered an arguido in an open case?

Answer is everyone. And in that ‘everyone’ the McCanns are included.

As
far as we know the PJ has an open case about Maddie’s disappearance.
That means everyone, including the McCanns, can be arguido in it.

A
very well-known principle of law is that one cannot be judged twice for
the same crime.

If one is cleared of a particular crime by the justice
system then one cannot be judged again for it even if new evidence
arises.

If the McCanns can be named arguidos in the current open process, and they can, than it means they were not cleared.

What they enjoy is the right to be presumed innocent, like any other citizen and like any other citizen can be considered arguidos if reasons for such to happens to arise.

And
these words, presumed innocent, show how wrong the McCanns are in their claim. If
presumption of innocence meant innocence then why use the word
‘presumption’?

If it’s presumed, as it is, then it leaves a margin for one not to be innocent. It that margin exists, as it does, then one has definitely not been cleared.

This is to say that this complaint is heading for
more than certain defeat.

It’s not about if but about how big the defeat will be and how
sternly the Supreme Justice Court will react to this.

This is a King Canute standing in front of the waves, ordering the tide not to rise when he and everyone
knew that he wouldn’t be obeyed.

The chances of success are the
same as those of someone jumping off a cliff surviving in the hope
of crossing flight paths with an eagle and grab its paws.

5. Stirring the pot?

To
do such a thing could only mean one of 2 things, either an arrogance in
terms that cannot be qualified or quantified in any medical book of
psychology or an ulterior motive.

As it isn’t the first, it can only be the second.

Our first thoughts were about this being stirring the pot.

The
accusation against the Supreme Justice Court was so ridiculous and so destined to doom that a
possibility was that it was all to cause angry reactions that would to be
collated and used in a media campaign in which the McCanns would be
martyrs and all of us just a heartless and cruel lynch mob.

But 2 things didn’t add up.

The first is that there was no added value to go down this particular lane.

If
they wanted to collate angry messages against them, as of January 31st
there are enough of them to populate dozens of dossiers.

No need for such a folly stunt.

The
second thing was our own words. We were contradicting ourselves as we
have defended here – and will continue to do so – that in any scenario
it was useful for both government and the other side that the McCanns be
portrayed as really bad.

Having them as martyrs is simply not befitting the game we have witnessed this far.

The game the way we see it needs the McCanns to be the really bad guys.

Only
a bad negligent McCanns allows for an abduction and it has to have that
for the mystery to be prolonged, as in to be unsolved as the other side wishes it to be, and it was the other side playing this hand.

No, after thinking about it, we have come to the conclusion that it isn’t about stirring any pot.

6. ‘Innocent-look’

But
then it dawned on us that the game does indeed need them to look bad as much as it does BUT it also needs them to have been cleared by the Portuguese justice system.

Bad,
bad, really bad as in negligent but not as bad as in involved in her
death.

Nothing to do with sparing the McCanns any damage but because
recognising Maddie died under parents watch rules out abduction and abduction is
an absolute requirement for all those who want it to be an unsolved crime.

As we said in our post “Game-changer” before the Supreme Justice Court acórdão everyone on the game board was expecting for the McCanns to lose.

That was a given.

But
everyone involved was expecting they would only lose in the battle of rights
between having the right to a good name, derived from the presumption of
innocence, losing to the right of free speech. And that would be it.

Losing
this battle in this way would keep intact what the McCanns, or others
for them, have claimed for years and which we will call the
‘innocent-look’.

‘Innocent-look’ is the image created, with the help of a friendly media and also of a friendly
government, police and judicial system, when it was stated that with the archival the McCanns had been
cleared. Officially the McCanns have been ‘innocent-looking’ all these years.

‘Innocent-look’ was the other side, with the help of the media, government, police and judicial system confusing, on purpose, between the McCanns having been told they stopped being arguidos because the process was archived, which is true, with them being told they stopped being arguidos because they were innocent, which is false.

The
Supreme Justice Court stating, in black and white, that the McCanns had
not been cleared just blew to smithereens this ‘innocent-look’.

We
have been admonished by a friend for, even if unwittingly, misleading
our readers into thinking that the Supreme Justice Court acórdão has taken away the
McCanns right to presumption of innocence.

If we did, now is the time to apologise.

The
McCanns didn’t lose anything because what is being said they lost is something they never had as we explained above: that they had been cleared.

The Supreme Justice Court didn’t make up the fact that they weren’t, that fact existed since
July 2008, when the process was archived, with the possibility of being
reopened in case new evidence appeared.

The Supreme Justice Court acórdão only put in black and white what already existed.

The
‘innocent-look’ existed because before the acórdão it wasn’t expressed explicitly anywhere and that allowed for ambiguity.

The other side has used this ambiguity to spin it into their false claim of innocence,
or the official ‘innocent-look’.

They did this so efficiently, that it became the base stone for their legal bullying all these years.

That
bullying always stopped short of discussing facts in a court of law
because then they knew that this fallacy, of them claiming they had been declared innocent, would be exposed.

And
now, very unpleasantly for them, the Supreme Justice Court has written it down, ending all speculation, exposing the reality to
all. We repeat that it did not create anything, only clarified what already was.

As
we said in our “Game-changer” post having an official judicial document
saying explicitly the McCanns were never cleared by the Portuguese
justice system made the official hoax, the ‘innocent-look’
unsustainable.

The other side needs for that lie within the lie,
the one that stated the McCanns had been cleared, to persist because
without it, it will be completely ridiculous to try anything that does
not involve the parents.

You see, up until now, although the
files stated that the dogs signalled blood in the apartment living
room and hired car, and human death scent in the living-room, the
bedroom closet, the backyard and the car, the McCann’s ‘innocent-look’
made it possible to pass the message that all that was indeed in the
files but the authorities deemed that they had nothing to do with Maddie
otherwise the McCanns would have been charged and that didn’t happen,
they say, they were cleared.

The ‘innocent-look’ in a nutshell.

We,
who are familiar with the case, know the McCanns weren’t charged
because the FSS was outrageously specious, and wrote up a report that
made doubts to be raised where there were none, causing the desired in
dubio pro reu.

With the Supreme Justice Court acórdão, the Portuguese judicial system blew the ‘innocent-look’ right out of the water.

It
said, taking away all ambiguity, that “let not be said, too, that the
appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal
proceedings”.

And it said that after having said this:

“1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :

(…)

“6.
The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human
blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.7.
The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human
blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants Kate
McCann and Gerald McCann after Madeleine's disappearance.”

(…)

However,
even in the archiving dispatch serious reservations are raised as to
the verisimilitude [verosimilhança] of the allegation that Madeleine had
been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate
McCann version.”

And the ‘innocent-look’ sank to the bottom as
the rock it was that had been only kept afloat by the helping hands of the media, the
government, the police and the judicial system.

Expecting to
lose on the battle of rights and ending up with the McCanns losing their
‘innocent-look’ was a fatal blow for the other side.

7. Current options

As
things stood, before the McCann complaint against the Supreme Justice Court, or the
McCanns without their ‘innocent-look’ it would be unacceptable to pin it
all on a vague patsy such as the preposterous European human
trafficking gang.

That would, we think, cross the line of trust
citizens are to have for their national institutions and it may be one
too dangerous to cross.

To archive with the McCanns without their
‘innocent-look’ and without them having been questioned is the same as
saying that when it comes to British justice the Orwellian saying that
we’re all equal, only some are more equal than others, applies totally.

Even
to question the McCanns and then archive, not only all of the above
continues to be valid as is it’s even worse for the government as it can no longer be used
as an excuse to say that only the Portuguese were fooled by the couple.

Questioning them and letting them go would mean the British were equally
fooled by those more equal than all other equals.

So it seems that it’s absolutely essential for the other side that the McCanns regain their ‘innocent-look’ at all costs.

Without it the McCanns unsolved abduction is doomed, and if it suffers that fate , so will others.

Is reconquering of the McCanns’ ‘innocent-look’ the reason for this stunt?

The
answer is that it is partly so but it could not be the full reason because the
complaint is destined for evident failure and all involved know that very well.

No way that the McCanns will regain their ‘innocent-look’ through this complaint, or, in fact, any other way. Once the decision made by the Supreme Justice Court comes through it will be lost forever.

8. Joining pieces

In
fact, the full reason comes when one joins these 2 pieces of the puzzle: the need for
the ‘innocent-look’ with the fact that the complaint is destined to fail.

Currently, after the complaint has been filed, in terms of the McCanns being cleared on not, the situation is quite ambivalent.

To
the legal purists, we ask you to spare us for a moment and please
understand that we are speaking of what is perceived and not of what is
real.

And it’s important to understand that there’s a perception
that before the Supreme Justice Court’s acórdão the McCanns could claim that they were
cleared and after it they can’t.

We know this perception is wrong but
it is true that it exists and we think this entire complaint exercise is based exactly on that perception.

Wrongfully, the general public has the idea that
with this complaint the McCanns are trying to regain their
‘innocent-look’.

We are saying this because it is exactly what has been stated as the
objective of the complaint: that the McCanns want to overturn the decision
that said they were not cleared.

So, in terms of public
perception, that decision has been put on hold, meaning the McCanns have
regained, for now and until the Supreme Justice Court decides, their ‘innocent-look’.

If
our reading of this is right, then taking into account that the
complaint is going to flunk, whatever is to be achieved is to be during
the period of time when the public has the perception that the McCanns
were able to put a halt to the fact – yes, an existing fact and not one
created by the Supreme Justice Court so nothing will alter it – that they had not been
cleared.

And what is expected to happen in that period of time?
The end of the fiscal year in April and the decision to continue or not
to fund Operation Grange.

9. Critical period

The
ambivalence lies on the fact that the Supreme Justice Court gave an incontrovertible
visibility to the fact that the McCanns had never been cleared by the
Portuguese justice system.

The media echoed it and everyone saw
it, no one can claim that they didn’t see it, and in this particular instance,
the government is included in that everyone.

The word Supreme said it all.

So,
even though the public feels the McCanns were able to temporarily glitch
the machine, that same public feels, not to say knows, that
the Supreme Justice Court is right in having said what it did, that the McCanns were
not cleared.

So we are at a situation, in terms of perception, in
which the Supreme Justice Court’s decision cannot be taken into account but certainly it
cannot be ignored.

Or, to be specific, it cannot be taken into account for NOW and
it cannot be ignored because all know the reason lies with it.

And it is this conundrum that the other side is betting all their chips on.

That’s why they’ve made the McCanns jump off a cliff in the hope of catching an eagle.

The jump is indeed hopeless in the objective it alleges it aims to achieve, to regain the ‘innocent-look’, but is far from being pointless.

As
we said in our post “Square One”, the other side’s main objective for
now is to be able to not have a decision before the end of the current
fiscal year.

To be precise, to force the government to concede
more funds after April and this evidently will have to be done before
the next fiscal year begins.

As we have explained, we are
currently in a period in which there’s a perception that until the Supreme Justice Court
decides again the McCanns have officially regained their ‘innocent-look’.

All
the other side has to do is hope the Supreme Justice Court doesn’t decide before when a
decision about next fiscal year’s fund has to be made in Britain.

As the
current one ends in April, we would say that milestone, the funding
decision, will happen from the end of March until the end of April.

The other side is counting on the slowness in deciding that is characteristic of the Portuguese justice system.

That’s
what this whole move is about, to stall the ‘not cleared’ thingy just long
enough to when the government has to decide about giving more money to
Operation Grange.

That’s why they used a toothpick for a
spanner and threw it into the engine. It’s not meant to stop it, just
halt if for a little while, the critical period.

10. Twisting government’s arm

This
manoeuvre places the government in a very uncomfortable position.

As
far as we can see it has 2 options in case the Supreme Justice Court doesn’t decide about
the complaint in time.

The first is to go ahead and make a move before things are definitely closed in Lisbon.

With this complaint, when we all thought all was tied up, the other side was able to create a new loose end.

The
other option is to grant Operation Grange further funds, that uniqueness of
British criminology whereby a crime is only a crime if funded by
government.

The inconvenience of the first option is to go for
what it has avoided for years, and unlikely to change that in the very,
very last inches of the final stretch.

We have here said that the
odds of the complaint having any success are the same of a pig growing
wings and flying but as the saying says, it’s only over when the fat lady
sings and she hasn’t sung yet. She did open her mouth and filled
her chest with air on Jan 31 but because of this complaint hasn’t uttered a sound
yet.

We believe that any action to be taken by government is to
be based on a final decision from Lisbon and that was halted,
momentarily, by the complaint.

So the other side is counting on, and we agree on that, that the government won’t make a move before the complaint is decided.

If
the government concedes further funding to Operation Grange, the other
option, it will be seen as supporting the claim made by the McCanns that
they were indeed cleared.

But, as we said, the Supreme Justice Court’s decision looms in the air. It cannot possibly be ignored.

To continue the funding without bringing in the McCanns would compromise the government into being seen as believing in the McCanns ‘innocent-look’.

After
all, it would be ignoring, or at least setting it aside the Supreme Justice Court acórdão and so show
agreement that what the Portuguese court had said about the
McCanns not being cleared was all biased and would be seen continuing to be willing to spend money
looking for culprits elsewhere.

Or, to be clear, having the Supreme Justice Court’s
decision in the air and continuing to fund the chase after human
traffickers in Europe, the British government will be seen by siding with the
‘innocent-look’ of the McCanns.

That would show that it thought
that whatever the Portuguese justice system has said was not to be taken
that seriously because there were mistakes made by both nations which
made Portugal biased against Britain.

And once that is achieved,
having the government been seen siding with them, the next step would be
to work on a way to give the case a Ben Needham kind of ending: we are
certain she was taken, we think most likely that it was a European
human trafficking gang and will now close shop and reopen if anything
new surfaces, thank you, now go home and forget about this.

Forget about the cadaverine and the outright lies as they won’t be mentioned.

The
blood to justify the signalling of dogs will be said to have been from
an animal, nose bleeds, a shaving accident or from a leg cut on a step
of a plane’s ladder.

The numerous inconsistencies will be considered natural and none will ever be detailed.

And
the McCanns will continue to search for their daughter until they get
lost in the darkness away from spotlights and we all forget about them.

That simple.

If
one adds to this complaint stunt, the very, very early planning for the
10 yr anniversary and the alleged commitment of Kate McCann in a
prolonged contest via the Missing People Choir on ITV’s Britain’s Got
Talent, one can clearly see the effort that is being made to push things
beyond April.

So it comes as no surprise seeing Kate McCann being deeply and so altruistically involved,
as a Missing People ambassador in an event that takes place at the end
of April, on April 23rd to be precise, the London Marathon.

This time, to help raise £2,000 – yes, that much and it is national news it seems –
to sponsor one Matt Curtis who, running in the middle of just a mere 40,000 other
people, is supposed to give visibility to the Missing People charity.

Money well spent if one is a fool we would
say. The country is still reeling from the effects of the
visibility given by Kate McCann’s 2015 cycle run and now will be hit
with this outstanding presence of complete unknown marathon runner in the London Marathon.

This could be to replace the Missing People Choir stunt, because after the
backlash it suffered in being associated with Kate, we haven’t heard any
more of its progression on Britain’s Got Talent.

10. Media surge

The first thing
that was needed to be done to achieve all this was to give big
importance to what had none. Thus the media surge in Britain:

We
have listed the Portugal Resident because it did report the story but
we exclude it in intention from all the other 9 stories above.

A huge difference when compared with the Portuguese media where all the issue got was a minor piece on the last page of the Correio da Manhã (above in yellow).

We are once again excluding the Portugal Resident, although it is in Portugal but as it’s in English we’re not considering it as Portuguese media.

If
one was to put this British media output side-by-side with the one about the
McCanns not having been cleared, we would say that it would be a
shoulder-to-shoulder race.

No question about it, this was made to seem significant.

Like if when little
Gerry had piled up a little sand in a sandbox and the media was shouting that he had built a Mount Everest or if when little Kate scribbled a doodle on a
wall and was credited by that same media for having replicated the
ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

That’s how ridiculous all is.

For starters the
media says it’s a legal battle, when it is but a request to whomever is
to decide. It’s like saying that when an employee requests from his employer paper
for a printer he’s engaging in a legal battle.

A legal battle is between two
entities, individual or collective, with a court overseeing and deciding
as the legitimate independent entity it is to the conflict.

A
conflict between a citizen and a court and where said court is the decider is not exactly a
battle but a procedural clarification and nothing more than that.

The only, and it is very unfortunately a lot, involvement of Mr Amaral in this is that he was notified of the filing of the complaint as his assets remain seized because of it.

He will also have to be notified of the decision on the complaint.

Never, we think, has a request for annulment because of a technicality got so much attention and was given so much importance.

Time
to quote Tracy Kandhola in her article in the Mirror: “They have now
made a complaint over the ruling to that court, it is sort of like an
appeal.”

See? According Ms Kandhola, It’s as important as an
appeal.

Only it is not. They know that but want the general public think
that it is.

Comparing a complaint with an appeal is like comparing a molehill with a mountain.

By doing this, the media is legitimising the McCanns’ claim of ’innocent-look’ and making sure the general public perceives that it has been restored for now.

That done, then it passes the image that it will cost plenty.

They
have to push the idea of an “all-in”. For those not familiar with
poker, “all-in” is when a player bets all his money on the hand he’s
holding. It’s the ‘all-or-nothing’ concept.

By claiming that this
complaint will be what will completely drain the Fund, is a falsity but is quite effective in selling it as being really important.

Pass the image that it is something worth risking all for.

Say it will cost plenty and another notch for ‘innocent-look’.

It
won’t cost that much.

It’s just a complaint. If it reaches a 1,000€, we would be
surprised. A pebble on the beach within the global costs involved.

But
what this exaggeration in the cost is really about is to convey
the idea it will be a really long legal battle.

If it’s going to cost plenty it’s because it’s going to last a really, really long, long time.

And that links up to
what really matters about this entire thing, the question of when will
we have a decision on this. How long will this last?

This is the crux of this whole exercise.

So much so that a reader, Unknown, asked us that question in our previous post and we withheld the comment. Here it is now:

“Unknown has left a new comment on your post "Counter-Attack":Dear
Textusa, with regard to the complaint against the Portuguese Supreme
Court ruling, do you happen to know the usual timeline expected for a
response from the Supreme Court? OR have a contact that might know?
Thank you!Desperately looking forward to your next blog!Posted by Unknown to Textusa at 20 Feb 2017, 14:14:00”

Before
answering Unknown let us first look at what the media have said about how long it
would be, adding to the suggested time associated with the bogus large
costs.

Quoting Ms Kandhola, the Lazzeri wannabe: “a family friend added:
“It’s been ¬dragging on for nearly nine years and they’re not giving up
for the sake of a few more months.”

The other side is clearly saying it will take a few months, or the reader has guessed it, after April.

Things are quite clear when decontructed, aren’t they?

Only problem for the other side, is that this is just a complaint, not an appeal.

It
does not require any contradictory from the opposing side’s
legal team as the opposing side is the Supreme Justice Court, the decider.

It does not involve a collective of judges to decide, it’s up to the Court President.

The
complaint entered the court, has been given to its President for
decision which, once made, will be communicated to the complainer.

The
only thing we are see delaying this decision in any way is the
time the court will take to come up with the appropriate wording – which
we hope will be followed by action – to dissuade other lawyers in other
cases to not follow this example so highly denigrating and insulting to
the court.

Not being an appeal, there is much less to be decided, involving less people, so naturally will take significantly less that it it were one.

We think that a few months is an exaggerated hope on the other side’s part.

It
isn’t an appeal, it won’t cost money, it won’t take long and is heading for defeat, but all that is needed is it just to last until the government
decides to concede to funds.

So important they deemed this that they didn’t hesitate throwing Isabel Duarte under the bus in her own country.

Another
example to all those who have helped all these years. The moment you
cease to be useful, do have your first-aid kit handy. In fact, best have
112 on speed dial.

We don’t see this as any pressure on the
Portuguese court – outside that minor piece in the Correio da Manhã this
has had no echo in the Portuguese media – as we know that an acórdão by the Supreme Justice
Court is done with the care, professionalism and seriousness that the
court represents.

It’s ridiculous to think it would be pressured
by a complaint and one questioning one of the most basic elements of Portuguese
law, and in such disrespectful terms.

No, we think the McCann legal team was thrown to the lions in Lisbon, to pressure the British government.

Some
may say that Theresa May has much more important things to decide, with
all ongoing Brexit issues, than about the Maddie case.

We disagree.

Again,
not because we write about it and have dedicated parts of our lives to
it and would like to have its importance recognised.

It is
important because it is really important.

Saying it matters little to
the British Prime-Minister is like saying that winning the Euro 1016
mattered little to Portugal

Maddie and McCann have become a British ‘brands’ known around the globe.

They certainly are a global household names.

Maddie is very relevant to the image
the UK intends to project about itself worldwide.

We would say that it comes second to Brexit when
the world thinks of Britain.

Then, like Brexit, and evidently not nearly as relevant, Maddie is history. Criminal history is being made. All decisions made now and the names of those who made it will be registered forever.

And it’s factual that people through time search more to know about Jack the Ripper, the Moors murders or other famous crimes than about relevant historic milestones like the creation of the United Nations, NATO or the European Union or even, nationally, the Miner’s strike or the Falklands War.

Lest we forget, Operation Grange was launched by a Prime-Minister. We think that alone makes it relevant for the UK.

Lastly it was launched when Theresa May was in the Home Office, so she has a personal interest in it.

We would think that this decision ranks high in Theresa May’s priorities.

For some reason Whitehall was involved directly in this case last summer.

11. Why is this good?

Sometimes the answer to a question is so self-evident and close that one fails to see it.

It is good because it’s happening.

The other side is not eliminating nor avoiding the ‘not cleared’ official moment, it’s just postponing its inevitability.

If
things had been decided and agreed between the government and the other side, we would not be witnessing a campaign which the end result will be to confirm even more ‘not-cleared’ status.

When the Supreme Justice Court rejects the
complaint it will further confirm that the ‘innocent-look’ has been a fake all these years and so
make things much more difficult to not involve the McCanns in whatever
Operation Grange has to conclude.

Note, nowhere have we said we
think this tactic is destined for success, we have just described it.

In fact, it may even infuriate government as no one likes to be forced into a decision.

In fact, nothing stops the government continuing the funding of Operation Grange and then exposing the truth.

There’s even a reason to do this: with this complaint the other side has scored one huge own goal.

Indeed, the Supreme Justice Court has put in black and white what always had been but, unfortunately, was ambiguous. And it did it because the plaintiffs raised that point not in the form of a question but as an affirmation. They said, in their appeal to this court that they had been cleared and the court reminded them that it was not so.

But, as we have said the whole overarching background was the battle of rights. The point raised by the plaintiffs was an argument used within that debate.

But now the McCanns have asked Portugal directly: have we or have we not been cleared?

A direct, blatant, outright, overt, clear and unambiguous question.

The answer it is to get will leave no margin for doubt or for any further questioning and will eliminate any and all ambiguity.

We think it’s an answer worth waiting for.

So, to say Operation Grange is continuing to be funded, the media may spin it that the government is setting aside the Supreme Justice Court acórdão of January 31, and they won’t really be far away from the truth, if one looks at it under the perspective that they indeed are as government is to give preference to the answer to the direct question put by the McCanns.

Then there’s Brexit. The government may continue the funding because it simply wants to use the McCann case as an image of a post-Brexit Britain.

A just and fair one, decided in the pursuit of justice, if it moves towards truth or nepotism that protects its nationals, even if only a couple of upper-middle class doctors, independent of justice if it goes for archival or European gang.

Because whatever the government decides, the whole world knows what the truth is so it will read correctly the option taken.

But the fact is that currently, the other side is desperately fighting means, to us, that there’s no agreement between them and the government.

And if there’s no agreement, as such desperation shows, the time to agree has gone, so, in our opinion a decision has been made.

A
decision in which any solution not involving the
McCanns was ruled out, taken after the Supreme Justice Court’s ‘not-cleared’ moment and subsequent
propagation like wildfire of Maddie’s death.

Or a decision to
inform the other side that without an official ‘innocent-look’ there’s
no possibility to indulge an unsolved abduction. Get it back, or it is
what it is.

12. Next week

It was out intention to address this week something that is worrying us very much: the neglect campaign against the McCanns.

We felt that it was more important to tackle first the complaint stunt, explaining it to our readers before doing that.

This post has become quite long even for our standards. Because of that we have decided to write about said campaign next week.

Then, we will speak about, among other things, Mark-Williams-Thomas’ fascinating appearance on ITV's This Morning.

And why the apartment 5A is strangely news.

Apologies to those who were expecting us to do it this week and we hope you understand.

13. Conclusion

The game is being played fiercely and enthusiastically.

The resourcefulness, the determination and resilience shown by the other side is not surprising.

We continue
to note the continued deafening silence from “Kneel all ye unfaithful who
have failed to be in awe before Operation Grange” corner of
the internet.

Not even to congratulate Mr Amaral on the Supreme Justice Court ruling.

One must stress that the government hasn’t made a move as far as we can see. All of the above is from the other side.

Please note that it hasn’t made a move towards or against the truth and, as we write, we have no clue outside the fact that we are seeing the other side really putting their foot down on the gas pedal.

Last week we overlooked mentioning the silence from the Ben
Needham front.

We are doing so this week. When was it that Ben was
declared dead? Only 129 days ago. And 131 days since the toy car that
triggered it all was found.

To say beforehand that one expected resistance, then one cannot falter, dishearten or hesitate when before it.

King Canute teaches us that if the tide starts to get our feet wet one only has to take a few steps back and not worry seeing it rise as sooner or later it will fall, and as far as we know, wet feet has never deterred anyone from battle.

164 comments:

Its funny how some people really do not like what you say......but as they are supposed to be on same "side"....which well they know....resort to critising how long winded you are...how difficult it is to accept your belief in what happened....in fact anything at all that detracts from how very insightful your blog is! Many others have fallen by the wayside. Thanks again sisters ....one day these games may be shown for what they are.....we seem to need reminding of a young girl who suffered injustice.....which is alledgedly why we are all here.

As that great anti establishmentarian Robert Crumb would say ....."Keep on truckin!!"

Agree with post above... yes very funny how some people are just waiting for the Textusa post to arrive so they can pour scorn over it. In fact, it just serves to tell us how important and revealing Textusa's posts are. It 's like they give the rubber stamp to the posts.

The usual excellently written piece from you ladies,I wasn't aware Amaral's assets remain frozen my heart goes out to that man it really does. Many of us don't understand the law me especially but you explain it all beautifully thank you.Can't wait for next weeks instalment and seeing what the next week brings in this never ending drama.x

As per Joana Morias closing remark '..it is possible the judges will consider the frivolity allegation as defamatory and take legal action against the couple', and anticipating the McCanns reaction to this huge issue, do you think the Judges have intentionally created an opportunity to require that the the issue of innocence is tested in court ?

"We, who are familiar with the case, know the McCanns weren’t charged because the FSS was outrageously specious, and wrote up a report that made doubts to be raised where there were none, causing the desired in dubio pro reu." - I still can't fathom what went on there, at FSS (which was later closed down and seemed to have tendered for work commercially although financed by the UK government.) Why the report was so 'watered down' -- as if under instructions from the Home Office, or another source. But why, why?

You have, yes. Succinctly! My 'why' is in despair as to why the death of a child is afforded so little importance in itself, whilst those surrounding it only think of their 'standing' in society. Their careers and future well-being. Yet the child is dead, and they couldn't care less. It's an abomination.

Excellent & thoughtful post. But to those would perhaps don't fully understand the saga and\or haven't followed it for near ten years, if you take from this, just

''Expecting to lose on the battle of rights and ending up with the McCanns losing their ‘innocent-look’ was a fatal blow for the other side.''Sums are completely this saga, this post & what the Justice system with it's ruling in Portugal actually achieved.Thanks

Just a ps:Although Britain prides it's self on the NHS paid for by taxpayers etc and is struggling at the moment, I feel it is totally horrendous to think particularly in the cases of children, people are appealing for treatment regimes via social funding appeals (gofundme etc) when this case has been given £millions. It will stop, it has to stop and I feel Mrs May will stop it.

I often think about how the Mcs approach normal life, trying to maintain a certain appearance to the general public as they must be desperate for their "support". I think it easier for KM as she can maintain some kind of anonymity, however, GM is in a very different position. As a professor in a medical research environment, with an honorary consultant cardiologist position in the NHS, he must come across so many people and a lot of these people, including those he sees on a daily basis, must have a strong opinion on this case. Personally, I'm a little indifferent towards everything, what keeps me interested is that I hate bullies, always have done, and these people and their supporters have taken this approach to silence people who contest their obvious lies, as shown by the archived case files. I would just like to see justice and the Mcs taken to task as “normal” working class parents would have been. The problem I see is that this will not happen just because of protection of person/persons higher in the chain. Anybody with any sense can look at the evidence/case files etc. and see that nothing tallies, it is all a fabrication, the abduction, the checking, all lies. The Press and OG know this, as does anybody in the Home Office and most certainly the PM. A lot of people who come across GM in everyday life must have done some reading into this case and seen the same thing. One would also assume some of his co-workers simply because basic human instinct leads one that way, to know more about the person one is working alongside. To be honest, he is the kind of person that people can easily despise. Back in 2007 I couldn’t stomach the news clips on MM because of this self-obsessed, narcissistic person, so I didn’t watch. I read nothing more about the case until 4 years ago when I came across something on the web then found blogs and, eventually, the case files and GA’s Truth of the Lie. I watched a number of the videos and it brought everything back, how I could not bear to watch GM. He’s done well to get to where he is considering the time he has had to spend fighting legal cases, I truly hope the NHS has not effectively supported the latter using taxpayers’ money! For him, what he has built could come tumbling down, somehow though, I don’t think so. I believe that in these times of post-truth the case will be archived, the obvious lies and discrepancies simply ignored, a ridiculous statement made as in the case of Ben Needham, then simple quiet from those who make the decisions. I do wish to be proven wrong though and will keep tuning into your excellently written articles with the hope that the obvious truth will come out one day.

Well done on you insightful analysis. Gerry must have thought he was back in his native Scotland where, uniquely, they have 3 possible verdicts - Guilty, Not Proven and Not Guilty. Both of the latter are acquittals- Not Proven for lack of evidence to support a charge.This is ridiculous as they were never tried and charged but it's what they would like us to believe. Their challenge to the S.J.C. court decision is an insulting farce. Even President Trump had to accept the court's ruling on his recent travel ban.Whoever is advising the McCann's has abandoned them to their delusions and you are right. After years of careful minding and support that is no accident. How on earth will Cressida Dick justify extending Grange when reports of her appointment also carry news of the budgetary cuts her force is enduring? Millions wasted and Op. Grange no further than the P.J. were a decade ago! Talk about a rock and hard place! Yes, they are buying time to decide on the final outcome.

The Daily Mail (online) today ventures into the la la land of fake news -"At the early stages of the investigation journalists for Portuguese magazine "Sol" speculated that the parents were involved in the disappearance but allegations against them were dismissed quickly"

It has been pointed out elsewhere that the Supreme Court verdict was dated 31st January and subsequently reported that the ‘complaint’ process needed to be enacted within 10 days (although not sure if this is factual).

Allowing full leeway of 10 clear working days would give Wednesday 15th February, yet the annulment request seems to have been lodged on Friday 17th, based on the Mail’s Gerard Couzens article.

If the Supreme Court just use this late filing to invalidate the review request, maybe the Mc’s are hoping to exploit such a simple ruling with an ‘if only we’d managed to get it in in time’ sob story.

Hopefully the Supreme Court would see through any such ploy, respond in full and cross the t’s and dot the I’s in the same way they have done in their appeal judgement.

The answer worth waiting for, Textusa, that you mention, will be that by process alone of the reopening of the Portoguese case in 2013, they are in fact still technically Arguidos. This will be stated without ambiguity, in my opinion. If so, by stating merely the situation that has always been, is huge.

As the Supreme Justice Court said, the evidence collected and collated up until then did not allow them to be charged, so with the archival, that status was lifted and has remained lifted until now.

The reopening was due to new elements which we don't know what they are - which makes it amusing to read in the British papers being said that BOTH polices are investigating under the premise Maddie came to no harm - nor to whom these new elements may point the suspicion finger to.

It's never too much to repeat that the McCanns enjoy the presumption of innocence.

They have simply not been cleared.

Neither have you, nor have we, nor has anyone else.

The point being that neither you, nor, we nor anyone else, including the McCanns, can say they have been cleared by the Portuguese justice system in the Maddie case.

"Everyone -- charged with a penal offence -- has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. "UDHR - article 11http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_11.htmlThe MCs haven't been charged, so there's no point applying the presumption of innocence. But, unlike you, Textusa, they were made arguidos. As you said, that status was extinguished not because they were proved innocent but because the criminal investigation was extinguished. As a result doubt will poison their image, much more than GA's book. This is exactly what the prosecutors forecast when the protagonists escaped the reconstitution. However they had another chance to be cleared, but there again they chose not to request the inquiry phase, likely afraid by the contradictory debate implied.

'If it were my child, I'd be digging up the earth with my bare hands' Jodie Marsh slams parents of Madeline McCann

The glamour model went on to say she was 'beside herself' when her dog went missing for 10 minutes

ByLisa Toner12:36, 24 FEB 2017Updated12:41, 24 FEB 2017

Glamour model Jodie Marsh has taken to Twitter to attack the parents of Madeline McCann - even appearing to blame them for their daughter's disappearance.

She vented her frustrations while apparently watching investigative journalist Mark Williams-Thomas being interviewed on This Morning on Wednesday about the case.

The topless model, 38, started by writing "In my opinion it's all going to come crashing down for the Mccanns....".

She added: "I must admit, if it were my child I'd be on my hands & knees digging up the earth with my bare hands! Nothing else would matter...

I must admit, if it were my child I'd be on my hands & knees digging up the earth with my bare hands! Nothing else would matter..... https://t.co/o0Lg8RcbS9— Jodie Marsh (@JodieMarsh) February 21, 2017

"My dog went missing for 10 mins the other night & I was running up the street screaming her name like a lunatic. I was beside myself...

"And if I was so hysterical over my dog, the hysteria would be ten fold if it were my child. I wouldn't be suing people. I'd be SEARCHING.

"If someone told me that a void in the earth had been found I would NOT dismiss it. I would dig the earth myself!!!"

My dog went missing for 10 mins the other night & I was running up the street screaming her name like a lunatic. I was beside myself...— Jodie Marsh (@JodieMarsh) February 21, 2017

During the interview, journalist Mark said he had theories on the case but it was a "difficult story to tell now because there are so many legal implications".

But this apparently angered Jodie, who added: "Why are the Mccanns so concerned with all this legal action? Surely they should concentrate on finding Maddie?????

"If my child was missing, I wouldn't care who said what about me. I would just want to FIND HER!!!!!

"@KTHopkins isn't buying it and I don't thing the majority of the public are anymore..... what do you think?"

The next day she added that she had been "silenced" after she was asked to write an article about the McCanns which was then "pulled".

She added: "Already been silenced. Today I was commissioned to write an article about the Mccanns for a national magazine. They have just pulled it....

"They said their lawyers had "raised some concerns" - it was an article simply stating the FACTS & MY opinion. Why did they NEED to stop it??

"If I had been commissioned to write an article about ANY other person in the public eye, it would never have been pulled."

Her rant came despite there being no evidence her parents were involved.

Jodie believes the MCCanns should concentrate on searching for Madeleine, therefore they do NOT know what happened to her or where she is, therefore they were NOT involved in her disappearance, therefore, someone else "disappeared" her, therefore she was abducted, therefore her parents are INNOCENT

It seems that this article is stating as FACT that Maddie is missing and is a findable child, keep looking, keep searching. That's the opinion of the general public. It is this "FACT" they are pushing and wanting to keep in the fore.

Apologies if any offence caused. I do not for a moment give credence to that gentleman's ravings but was merely picking up on the use of the word "Void" which is attributed to Jodie and which is the word he used to describe his "findings" in a subsequent radio interview. She is quoted as saying the if she "was told there was a void in the earth she would NOT (in capitals) dismiss it". I inferred from this that she meant that the McCanns had been told of a "void" and dismissed it. I could not think of another instance to which she might have been referring. My re read at your suggestion led me to look at her implications that Madeleine is dead and buried -"digging up the earth with my bare hands".

Jodie’s first tweet was on Saturday 18th, four days before ‘This Morning.’ Someone had pointed her at Richard D. Hall's interview with U.S. Statement Analyst, Peter Hyatt, 'Embedded Confessions', so nothing to do with MWT's rubbish.

She claimed to be silenced yet having her thoughts publicised in national papers is hardly silencing her. She said that the article would be facts v her opinion. I have thought this since she started tweeting that she hasn't tweeted any facts. Lots of people are able to get Out unrefutable facts on Twitter. Her tweets have been search for your missing child

"KT Hopkins isn't buying it and I don't think the majority of the public is anymore, WHAT DO YOU think?" It's an invitation for the public to state our feelings over the case which might help Op Grange gauge public opinion as to what to tell us when it winds down?

Must admit sisters your challenge has me stumped. Final guess - could the MSM be attempting to rewrite history and put themselves forward now as champions of the public, the fearless press who were unafraid to publish stories which pointed to the McCanns not being whiter than white, even in the face of legal threats? Surely not?

Merci, Textusa pour cet article.So mutch waste of money. It is scandalous. Now, it's enough!And wasted time to protect people above (and below) Freud.So many people. I wonder often : will there be enough place in jail because they will be soon catch ? I agree totaly with you about THERESA MAY and BREXIT and importance of this case worldwide and forever. She MUST do sth. How many Prime- Ministers involved since 2007 ? Who will be the next to take the hot potato.MCCANN NOT CLEARED and NO NEGLECT. No BRT(bigroundtable). NO ABDUCTOR. NO GANG. But : files, Sr AMARAL's book, 2 cadaver and blood dogs, EDDY AND KEALA...."FRIVOLOUS" ???!!! shocking.As citizens what can we do ? A petition ? A demonstration ?For deceiving so openly the entire world during 10 years it is us (we) who should go to ..... where ???? the ECHR ??Now a thought for Madeleine. Thank you, Textusasisters, wonderful patient tireless persons.

The first point in answering your question is to put another question: why did they stage an abduction and didn’t even break a window or force a door, or even ruffle up Maddie’s bed to make it seem that she had at least slept there?

The answer is summed up in one word: haste.

The blundering up shows clearly that they all acted overwhelmed by the urgency and severity they perceived to be under, irrelevant if they were justified or not.

It’s very clear that were before a group of people who were unable to think rationally. The story they had to sell at that moment was that they had gone all out for dinner to have a good time and they thought that checking on kids once in a while would be enough, and it wouldn’t be, and Maddie was abducted.

Who in the right mind staging an abduction says that abductor goes in through door and to leave, with a weight on his arms, would leave by the window instead of the door from which he had come in. This alone shows the pressure they felt they were in.

Once Kate invented the open window, that no one had opened, they were stuck with having to use the window in the story. Every little mistake they made had to be fitted in because once the lie started it just snowballed and they felt, for some reason, they couldn’t back out of it, so they let it just grow and grow.

Even if they had time to think it out, a couple with kids as young as the twins in such a small apartment, it wouldn’t be possible to walk in undetected, walk around the apartment, get in the kids bedroom, pick up one (even if putting hand over their mouth as in movies) and leave.

But that is besides the question. The reality is that under pressure they chose this scenario. The pressure is shown to have existed by the blundering mistakes made, and so was the scenario they had to go along with.

Ah! but then no one could have given the parents a cast iron alibi. If it had happened as you suggested and the dogs had later alerted as they did then it would be "game over".The whole story of stolen by a stranger while we slept would have been difficult to believe, but the dogs' evidence would have put the tin hat on it. Better to have witnesses who can testify that you were definitely not there when the abduction occurred and to witness the discovery of the abduction with you. And then, for years, Jane Tanner actually saw the abducter WHILE Gerry was talking to Jez, so it couldn't have been him. Instead of taking the word of two respectable professionals, abduction between 9pm and 10pm gives you the solemn testimony of 9 such pillars of society.

TO L. HOLDEN."Police : where were you this night during the disappearence/kidnapping? Didn't you hear nothing? Were you both sedated ? Was Madeleine sedated, your twins too ? Oh I see, the kidnapper prefered to take a girl aged 4 rather than one of the twins, hum, hum !!" It's an example.

The Myths are back, when your read the comments at Cristobell Unbound's latest blog. It's copy-paste time. For MSM, for 'celebrities', for hateful pro's and anti's. Let's hope that this was a bad dream and that we now all may awake on the morning of the 4th of may 2007 while a girl of nearly four is jumping for joy on her bed in the Ocean Club in Praia de Luz, screaming 'good day, gorgeous' to her cuddle cat. Let's wait for the final-final respons of the supreme-supreme court. And prepare for the supreme final.

I see where you are coming from, but it also begs the question why didn't the McCanns in that scenario hear anything & how would a child be so quiet? and did the McCanns leave the patio door unlocked throughout the whole night, once they returned from the Tapas.Anything of course is possible. I'm wondering if the Starship Enterprize was in the area and poor M was simply beamed up.

Does she need the permission of MCCANN's lawyers to write an article ? "...simply stating the facts and my opinion ".What facts ?JODIE : why are the MCCanns so concerned with legal action instead of please, please FIND our little girl, help us.This is an article that distracts us and confuses us. Once again. MARK : difficult story to tell NOW ???!!!! Yes, let's wait and wait and wait and only after end of civil year you will tell us the story.

Textusa, great article thankyou.The ~Leicestershire police also failed to clear the McCanns.The Assistant Chief Constable made a statement:-"while one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."

One thing that confuses me about all this. Why didn't the Portuguese courts mention this before? They have had perfect opportunity in the last nine years to reiterate that the mccanns have not been made innocent of all wrong doing through the archiving of the case in Portugal. All the while the macs have been swanning around claiming they have been cleared of any wrong doing. Sorry if this has already been answered. Great blog by the way!

It kind of means that the macs were either badly advised about what it actually meant to have the case archived or they did know and just went round telling everyone they had been cleared of all wrong doing anyway, in a very arrogant sort of way.

We can even launch it as challenge, so that readers can think about it meanwhile:

Why has the complaint accused the Supreme Justice Court of frivolity?

After all, to stop the process for the time they could have been polite, say something like, Dear Sirs/Ma'ams, we really do think that 2+2 is 5 because of this, this and that... and as such we request the annulment of your decision of... Respectfully...

But instead, they chose to tell the court they were being frivolous in their decision. Why?

Do we actually know that the word "leviano" (it hasn't the same connotation as "frivolous", meaning "without deep thinking") is used in the complaint or is it how ID described the motive to the media ?What the 9 pages are on, apart from the expected moral arguments, I wonder.

Frivolous because....this is the word that is being repeated over and over again in the UK MSM in connection with the SCJ. They want it to be perceived as a Kangeroo court by the UK general public and care not a jot about offending the Portugues Justice System....try to undermine the institution who took away the look of innocence....wildly awaiting next Friday and have been since lunchtime this Friday. Thank you again Textusa

I dont imagine it has anything to do with the opinion they want to pass onto the uk general public. In truth the uk public could have been persuaded that There was a rouge Portuguese policeman whose only motive in writing a book was to make money but they won't believe that of a Supreme Court. Even if the word Portuguese sticks in the throat of the pro McCanns the couldn't bring themselves to dismiss as frivolous a Supreme Court. I think it's all part of the hate the McCanns, make them very neglectful parents and show them as arrogant Chaves

We erroneously thought that when you said "badly advised" you were referring to the fact the Mcs had accused the Court of being frivolous.

We were discussing the 2+2 being equal to 5, so we think you meant the fact that the "they're innocent and cleared" that Isabel Duarte included in the appeal to the Supreme Justice Court, and that, we think was a mistake made on the plaintiffs part.

Anonymous 16:50, yes it means "superficial" but not intentionally so. It is amazing since Roque Nogueira, who was the rapporteur magistrate, is constantly reminding the necessity of balancing between two rights, equal in law but having to be interpreted in depth in that specific case. The only argument that ID can now oppose is that the cornerstone of her allegations wasn't treated in depth. But it is inadmissible, since it was completely off the subject !

Anonymous 12:32, it's difficult to say that the MCs were badly advised (though imo they were. The first time I heard ID in Court I was about to warn the MCs to hire another lawyer), because in fact they listened to the mermaid who sang their song. Wouldn't you ? I would if I wasn't now (it took me a long time..) convinced that what I need is contradiction. The fact is that ID was hired months after the so-called AG Report. The person who spinned that dispatch's conclusion was Clarence Mitchell (I really don't believe that he even read the whole document), he's the main responsible for the supposed clearing of the MCs.

Hello Textusa Sisters maybe my message was lost I wrote last evening ? about this comment :Kandohla "they’re not giving up for the sake of a few more months" thinking, what arrangement can they possibly have,anyway they lied also when they registered her as WOC !

Maybe by throwing down the gauntlet to Portugal with this insult they are hoping for a swift and emphatic response which will give the U.K. the excuse to cede responsibility completely to Portugal and let Op. Grange quietly go away?

Not sure if you need to revisit the drawing board,the articles highlighted the cloak of fear regarding any one printing or saying(MWT on ITV) any thing will be sued,whether they would be is a different matter.

I don't think your wish will come true Anne until the truth is finally exposed. It has been too well ingrained into people. But for being a 10 year fan of Textusa I would probably be spouting the same.

Hi Textusa,another good post by you,in regard to the tenth Year anniverasry,the UK Prime Minister has made a statement to the press or Parliament,that the UK Government should not be involved with the outcome of an Overseas Police Force investigation or Government interfere with a Crime that may have happened outside of the United Kingdoms processes?Perhaps in this case of missing Madeleine McCann,it is a bit like shutting the stable door after the proverbial Horse has bolted,with this comment on Policing elements,after the Leicestershire Police Force became embroiled right from the start,so we can now conclude,that the UK Government knows how the UK police force have operated to obfuscate and disrupt serious investigations of their Policing methods?

Katie Hopkins: Madeleine McCann Will Never Come Home 26 February 2017, 11:31

"Maddie wasn't lost because somebody took her, Maddie was lost because she was left to be found" says Katie Hopkins.

On her Sunday morning LBC show Katie Hopkins had something to get off her chest about missing Madeleine McCann.

She told her listeners: "You know it seems to me, it's one of those subjects you've never been allowed to speak about, we're not really allowed, in my personal view, to speak about Maddie McCann.

"When I used to write for a different newspaper, I often asked to speak about Maddie, write about Maddie, and I was never allowed. I was told I wouldn't be taking the story forwards. And finally after campaigning at the Mail, I was allowed to write about Maddie and my belief that...Maddie is never coming home.

"In my opinion, Maddie will never be found. You know for me, I believe, no amount of money and no amount of libel action will ever cancel out the damage that the McCanns have brought and inflicted upon themselves.

"I've always said, you know, I don't believe we should have spent £11 million pounds, for example, to look for Maddie. And I do not believe we've seen an equal treatment.

"A man was charged for leaving his daughter in a car for two minutes while he raced into a chemist to get Calpol for her and he was charged with that offence.

"And I do believe if the McCanns had come from a council estate, you know we would have seen them treated very differently to the way that they have been treated over this.

"I still see Kate McCann's face being used to front up, you know, campaigns to help find children when they're lost, which of course is something we'd all support, but I find it very difficult to offer support when it's Kate McCann's face that's standing up as the concerned mother looking for missing children.

"It seems to me that she's the very opposite person to use. I believe that was one of the least successful campaigns of all times. It strikes me the BBC, for example, were in on it as well.

"You know they have the Crimewatch programme for the McCanns where they release new photofit. Photofits that the McCanns have been sitting on for five years because they didn't want to release them at the time.

"It strikes me, speaking very openly here on national radio, live on the radio, that the McCanns were the ones that put their children in harm's way, they were the ones that went out for dinner and left their children without a babysitter.

"For me I've always said the blame must sit with Kate and Gerry McCann. I have no problem with saying that either.

"You know I think when we give birth to children, when I gave birth to my first daughter, I remember waking up that morning, looking over, seeing this tiny little thing in this little cot next to me and thinking oh my gosh A. 'That's mine', you know, B. 'How did that happen? I'm not old enough or sensible enough to have a baby'.

"You are born that day, you are born yourself, reborn with something called 'The Fear'. You know it's a fear and it's with you every day, every minute, right now as I sit here.

"The fear. Are my children safe? Are they well? Telling them, reminding them to be careful how you cross the road when we just go to the spar, look left and right at this zebra crossing because the drivers won't stop.

"It's the fear, it's that time in the supermarket where they're out of your sight for one second, I can feel it now. There's a prickle that comes on your palm, the thought that something bad might happen to your children. That's a feeling every parent knows.

"My three children still have their little bunnies, you know their little cuddle bunnies, and those bunnies on their beds now, I can see them, I know they're just rags really. But I know if one of my children were ever taken from me for health or whatever.

"I don't know if I'd go on, but I know I would sleep with that under my pillow every night, every night until I went, or my daughter was found. You know and I think this is the truth of millions of parents out there across Great Britain.

"This is the truth that is not spoken about Maddie McCann, and this is why we must all remain and stand strong for Maddie McCann.

"You know it strikes me that in this instance, Maddie wasn't lost because someone took her. I believe Maddie was lost because she was left to be found. So thank you for letting me share that."

You know it strikes me that in this instance, Maddie wasn't lost because someone took her. I believe Maddie was lost because she was left to be found. So thank you for letting me share that."

Yes.. em...all this does is promote neglect!Is the end really going to be public pronuncements on what people think happened?A rubbishing of the McCanns trashing their reputations until they slope off free from prosecution to some anoymous life in the sun?

The passive voice "Maddie wasn't lost because somebody took her, Maddie was lost because she was left to be found" only avoids mentioning the subject, but everyone knows who the subject is : "The MCs didn't lose MMC because somebody took her, they lost her because they left her to be found". This moralistic sentence only reveals ignorance. I have to reckon that Ms Hopkins doesn't sound and look very much at ease. Perhaps she thought while speaking that she should have had a look at the Filing Dispatch, available on line in English.

Katie says,Madeleine wasn't lost because somebody took her?So could that mean no one abducted her, She was left to be found but she dosen't say found gone or dead she leaves that hanging,is she being clever?

been reading your blog long time greetings sisters so impressed with your insights and writting style i read your articles twice cos a lot to take in but always worth it so apologies for asking but what does the supreme court judgement mean for the ben needham case

The Sun is carrying the story of Hogan-Howe's retirement in terms of him having had to break his promise to the McCanns by not resolving the Maddie mystery by the end of his tenure. Mitchell is quoted as saying the Mccanns realize the investigation cannot go on forever and that recently its been very slow going. The cost of Op. Grange is cited as 13 million with the caveat that funding after next April will have to be "reviewed".It seems we are being prepared for the end of direct British involvement.

Waiting for the final dogs act. But first the disappearance trick. The equilibrists were great. The magicians just marvellous. The horror clowns really scary. I wonder when the McCann Circus will become Unesco world heritage.

‘OTHERS WERE INVOLVED’ Julie Bushby makes shocking claim about Shannon Matthews fake kidnap in new documentary to air this week…so should case be reopened?

New documentary set to air on Channel 5 at 10pm on Tuesday will again re-examine the now infamous case

BY TOM MICHAEL and LAUREN FRUEN 26th February 2017, 10:41 pm

A NEW documentary looking into the Shannon Matthews fake kidnapping plot will air explosive new views from neighbour Julie Bushby who said ‘others had to be involved’.

The show, set to air on Channel 5 at 10pm on Tuesday, will again examine the now infamous case which saw Shannon ‘kidnapped’ by her own mum and then reported missing.

The programme will claim that Karen Matthews – who appealed to the public for help finding her “missing” daughter – did not act alone.

According to the documentary, people who knew the disgraced mum will claim she was acting under instruction from somebody else.

Neighbours insist Karen and her accomplice Michael Donovan were not savvy enough to have hatched the scheme on their own.

Pal Julie Bushby, who mounted searches for nine-year-old Shannon in 2008 when she vanished, said: "I think others were involved.

"Others have got to be involved, because like I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, Karen didn’t have the intelligence, and Donovan, from what the cops have said, he didn’t have the intelligence."

Julie thinks people must be keeping secrets to 'protect themselves'.

She explained: "I think there are at least three other people who know far more than they let on. This is a horrible conspiracy of silence and it’s time for those people to speak out and tell the truth.

"Karen was not intelligent enough to think it up on her own. I’m not saying at all what she did was right, or that she was totally innocent, but she’s not evil.

"This was never about the reward money, something else was going on. We need the truth now.”

Hundreds of neighbours joined the search for little Shannon after Matthews claimed she had vanished on her way home from a swimming lesson.

The hunt cost West Yorkshire Police £3.2million and lasted 24 days.

But Shannon was eventually found tethered and drugged inside the base of a double bed at the grotty home of Meehan's uncle Michael Donovan almost a month after she disappeared.

Julie, who lived on the same estate as the family in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, said her suspicions over Matthews' involvement grew when Shannon was found alive.

She has previously said she believes her pal was simply trying to escape from her then boyfriend Craig Meehan.

Thousands of patients could be having unnecessary open heart surgery that costs NHS £60m a year

By Andrew Gregory20:39, 24 FEB 2017

Thousands of patients could be having unnecessary heart surgery because of a "highly inaccurate" test, experts have warned.

Needless open heart operations because of the approved exercise test may be costing the NHS £60million a year, it is claimed.

Exercise testing has been used to assess people with the heart valve condition aortic stenosis (AS) since 2012.

Patients are asked pedal a stationary bike to see if they require surgery to correct the problem, caused by a narrowing of the aortic valve opening.

But a study published in the European Heart Journal shows that the test only has a 60% accuracy rate, suggesting many patients are sent for surgery prematurely.

Each year in the UK about 10,000 aortic valve replacements are carried out at a cost of up to £15,000 per procedure.

According to the new findings, roughly 40% of these operations may be unnecessary.

Prof Gerry McCann, of the University of Leicester's Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, who led the study of 174 patients, said: "There is no doubt that valve replacement therapy is highly effective for patients with symptoms, however there are risks involved.

"It's a major operation and there's a 1% chance of people dying or having a stroke during or after. There's also the chance they could develop an infection.

"It can often take six months to recover, but if they survive they tend to do very well afterwards.

"However, if we know a patient has AS and no symptoms and we do nothing, there's also a 1% chance they will die, so there's a fine line between whether we should intervene or not.

"Our findings showed that this exercise test, which has been approved by the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology, was highly inaccurate as almost twice the number of people who became breathless during the test did not develop symptoms within a year."

Prof McCann plans to search for a more accurate way of deciding which patients with AS should undergo surgery.

A clinical study comparing early surgery with waiting for symptoms to develop is needed, he said.

Madeleine McCann's father warns thousands of heart patients are undergoing needless surgery, which is costing the NHS £60m a year, due to an inaccurate test

Exercise testing is used to assess people with the condition aortic stenosis Patients are asked to pedal a bike to see if they require surgery to correct itBut new research has found that the test only has a 60 per cent accuracy rate It was led by Professor Gerry McCann, a cardiologist at University of Leicester

Over to you Prime Minister,Theresa,are you and Cressida prepared to use more funds from the Tax payer-Operation stGrange?DCI Andy Redwood did enjoy the Helicoper flights though,searching with Tracker dogs for an alive missing girl?Don't drop the"Hot" potato that Sir Bernard Hogan Howe has dropped in your lap?

Just as the McCanns are mired in negative press stories along comes an article of inflated importance to remind us of Gerry's standing in the medical world. If a patient has aortic stenosis is it safe to wait a while until more obvious symptoms before going to the expense of surgery? Answer? No one knows as more studies are needed. Attempting to restore reputational damage which, of late, has taken a battering?

Indeed!! This article seems to have been lifted from the U.L website which explains that it is part of a research fellowship program funded by the N.I.H.R. which "plays a key role in the Government's strategy for economic growth,attracting investment by the life-sciences industries".

K. HOPKINS : "...I do believe if the McCanns had come from a council estate, YOU KNOW, we would have seen them treated very differently....".ME : I DON'T BELIEVE because I am SURE this has nothing to do with the McCanns living in Council estate or wherelse. They were treated like this because swinging had to be covered -up and after that : next step :cover-up the cover-up + because of the type of guests who were there at OC and because what those same Guests were up to during that week and was not to be known.

K.H."Campaign to help find children...."I find it very difficult to offer support....".ME : better say : To me it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to support any event that accepts K. McCann.

K.H. ..."the McCs..the ones that put their children in harm's way, ....went out for dinner and left their children without a babysitter." ME, to me :?????? Pffff !! again !!!Back to 2007 !!?? =GERRY McCANN : Yes, "like having your dinner in your backyard"!!!ME : NEGLECT thus !!!!Gerry McCann : A tiny little bit.

K.H..." I BELIEVE Maddie wasn't lost because someone took her. I BELIEVE Maddie was lost because she was left to be found".ME (traductor) := There was an abductor or 2 or 3 or a gang + the neglected parents outside dining, drinking, having fun with friends. It is their fault not the one of the gang. Believe me, you know.

TEXTUSA : "The Maddie abduction and the neglected TAPAS9 is an absolute farce".TEXTUSA : "JUST A WORD OF ADVICE...Dear Celebrity,...today (March 2011 !!!)....especially AFTER THE "McCANNLEAKS", NO ONE CAN ALLEGE IGNORANCE ON THE SUBJECT." + TEXTUSA SERIAL-JOURNALISM 2014 JANUARI : Lest the media forgets, or pretend not to notice, in the Maddie Affair they are accessories to obstruction of justice. ...."you are activelly and intentionally disseminating a deceitful message...".

K.H.: "I don't know if.., but I know I would sleep with their little cuddle bunnies under my pillow... ."YOU NOW and I THINK THIS IS THE TRUTH OF MILLLLLIONS of PARENTS.. THIS IS THE TRUTH that is not spoken about Maddie McCann".Me : Erm, you know, Very interesting Truth is your Truth.I believe you know, it's a pity it comes only now. Ms Hopkins, I think, you know you should have express it, erm, earlier. I know millllions of people are thinking that, you know don't you ?

Thank you, thank you so mutch for letting me share with you all this. Continue to SPREAD the Truth please. I believe I know that I think, it's my opinion. I'll ask to Ms Jodie Marsh.Ladies and gentlemen it was Ms HOPKINS"..speaking HERE on NATIONAL radio, LIVE on the radio that..."WAOW.

Katie Hopkins‏ @KTHopkinsOver 3 million people have listened to this clip. Too many have been silenced for too long (link: https://twitter.com/kthopkins/status/836099826685214720) twitter.com/kthopkins/stat… #standstrongformaddieInsertKatie Hopkins‏ @KTHopkinsMaddie wasn't lost because somebody took her, Maddie was lost because she was left to be found" @LBC (link: http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/katie-hopkins/katie-hopkins-madeleine-mccann/) lbc.co.uk/radio/presente…

Katie Hopkins‏ @KTHopkinsThank you to the five million who have listened & supported this clip. We are the many. Silenced by the powerful few (link: http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/katie-hopkins/katie-hopkins-madeleine-mccann/) lbc.co.uk/radio/presente…

Hmmm.. were n't the twins were also allegedly "left to be found", yet the paedophile kidnappers passed on this golden opportunity? Or maybe one child was enough and they did n't want to seem greedy. They had been "stalking the family" so must have known that three "neglected" kids were there for the taking that night. A kidnapper's bonanza but they failed to take advantage! Maybe someone could ask Katie Hopkins to comment on this anomaly.

I just don't understand why the press side with the McCanns when they have openly slated them, accused them of intrusion, lies etc., i.e. Leveson, also the libel challenges to press and damages? Is it just a money spinning exercise making money from this brand? I would have thought the press would be like sharks circling the prey. Working towards their revenge but it doesn't seem to be this way at all. Or, is there another agenda behind this? I'm stumped!

Kerry Needham jumps into defence of the Mc Canns......Kerry Needham, 44, whose son Ben went missing in 1991, hit back at Jodie explaining why she believes the McCanns' are right to clear their names.

She exclusively told Closer magazine: "Jodie Marsh has no idea how she would react to this situation - she's not even a mother, let alone the mother of a missing child. Nobody has a clue what they'd do until they're thrown into a situation with the nightmare of having a child go missing.

"I know what it's like to live with the pain of wondering whether you will ever see your child again - every day is a battle. Jodie doesn't have the right to judge."

Exactly Textusa- Clearly they have a hidden pact to support each others ``abduction`` theory. However Kerry speaking out now goes completely against the recent TV appearance where she accepted that Ben had dies in an accident. Talk about trying to confusion...and don`t forget how silent the Mc Cann team went when Ben was accepted to be dead in those same reports. Collusion and deliberate muddying of waters seems to be the order of the day in both cases.

"Closer" is definitely being used to support the abduction theory. A video below the news of the "spat" between Kerry Needham and Jodie Marsh asks "What do we know about Madeleine McCann? and then proceeds to flash up the information - left alone while parents dined, discovered missing on 10pm check, leads investigated - woke and wandered, snatched by Paedophile gang. Nothing else. Another link asking why the parents "WERE N'T MADE SUSPECTS in the investigation" (totally false info) explains that the P.J. were under the illusion that leaving children alone is the British norm, as if the only thing they were suspected of was child neglect. No mention of the real events at all! On another note, the McCanns themselves have little to learn when it comes to P.R. I took another look at the first appeal video as I remembered something. When I saw it live back in 2007, I was convinced that the McCanns had briefly paused in their own physical search for Madeleine to make it. Now that they have admitted Not searching I watched again to see why I had gotten this impression - and low and behold, there in the dark night appear the parents, dressed in jeans and almost matching track suit tops ( suitable for hiking) reading a message by the torch clutched in Gerry's hand, which he leaves the scene with. If they were n't searching why would he need a torch, there was perfectly adequate lighting in the pedestrian areas. Image and Spin to create the impression of frantic searching parents, when by their own later admission this was not the case. They are indeed a crafty pair.

Last week, Jodie Marsh hit headlines after criticising Madeleine McCann's parents Kate and Gerry. In this week's Closer Magazine (on sale NOW) she goes head-to-head with Kerry Needham, whose son Ben went missing in 1991. Here is an extract from the full magazine feature...

Almost a decade after three-year-old Madeleine McCann went missing in Portugale in 2007, her parents - Gerry and Kate McCann - have launched a new legal battle against a Portuguese police chief who claimed they were involved in their daughter's disappearance.

The move prompted criticism on Twitter from former glamour model Jodie Marsh. Here she states her case, while Kerry Needham - whose 21-month-old son Ben vanished from Kos in 1991 - explains why she is wrong and reveals the pain of a missing child...

Reality TV star Jodie Marsh, 38, doesn't understand why the McCanns are suiting and not using that money to find Madeleine.

She exclusively told Closer magazine: "I Tweeted about the McCanns because it's something I feel so strongly about. I've never understood how the couple - especially Kate - managed to appear so calm and controlled.

"I couldn't leave the country where my child had disappeared. I couldn't do anything but look for her. I certainly wouldn't care about what people were saying about me."

Kerry Needham, 44, whose son Ben went missing in 1991, hit back at Jodie explaining why she believes the McCanns' are right to clear their names.

She exclusively told Closer magazine: "Jodie Marsh has no idea how she would react to this situation - she's not even a mother, let alone the mother of a missing child. Nobody has a clue what they'd do until they're thrown into a situation with the nightmare of having a child go missing.

"I know what it's like to live with the pain of wondering whether you will ever see your child again - every day is a battle. Jodie doesn't have the right to judge."

Karen Matthews has branded Kate McCann 'a dreadful mother' for leaving daughter Madeleine alone on the night she vanished, her best friend has revealed.

Matthews, who faked the kidnap of nine-year-old daughter Shannon, said: 'I've been judged and I'm paying for it but Maddie's mother was bad too.

'At least my daughter was never left alone!'

In a bizarre rant against Maddie's parents Kate and Gerry, Matthews told friend Julie Bushby: 'Don't get me onto the McCanns, we've all got something to say about them.

'We're too lower class for them but we can still have an opinion. There seems to be one rule for them and another for us but she was a dreadful mum.

'She left one, two, three babies alone while she was out eating and drinking with her mates. My Shannon was kept away from her family but she was never left alone.'

Ironically, Matthews, 41 – now freed from jail – has ditched her first name and is known as Kate. The moniker is thought to have been inspired by one of her Hollywood idols and not by Maddie's mother.

Matthews' attack on Kate and husband Gerry is revealed for the first time as the couple have been criticised twice in three days on social media and national radio.

And her onslaught on the McCanns comes ahead of tonight's Channel 5 documentary which looks at whether the investigation into the plot to kidnap Shannon should be re-opened.

Julie claims friend Matthews is 'too stupid' to have invented the Shannon kidnap alone without colluding with others.

Wealthy parents, former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 48, of Rothley, Leicestershire, had already won the nation's hearts and public funding when three-year-old Maddie was snatched from a Portuguese holiday apartment in May 2007.

At the time they had left her and younger toddler twins siblings Sean and Amelie alone while dining in a nearby tapas bar with friends.

Schoolgirl Shannon vanished from her mother's home in Dewsbury, Yorks in February 2008.

She was discovered 24 days later following a £3.2million police search two miles away at the home of Michael Donovan, uncle of Matthews' boyfriend Craig Meehan having been drugged, tethered and hidden inside a divan bed.

Matthews, who had seven children with five fathers, and Donovan were sentenced to eight years over the kidnap plot.

The pair had allegedly been inspired by Maddie's disappearance and invented the kidnap plot to claim a reward for 'finding' her.

Matthews' best friend and former neighbour Julie, who has kept diaries of her prison visits, told MailOnline: 'Karen talked about Maddie and her family, the difference and unfairness of their social situations.

'She's never understood why British and Portuguese police haven't taken it any further and asks in her simple almost child-like state if it's because 'they're rich and posh and she's poor and common'. '

Mother-of-three Julie, who led the painstaking search for Shannon and still supports her friend said: 'I want to sit her down and ask 'Why?' She's not got the highest IQ and I wonder if she was coerced into doing something she didn't want to do.

Wealthy parents, former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 48, of Rothley, Leicestershire, had already won the nation's hearts and public funding when three-year-old Maddie was snatched from a Portuguese holiday apartment in May 2007.

At the time they had left her and younger toddler twins siblings Sean and Amelie alone while dining in a nearby tapas bar with friends.

Schoolgirl Shannon vanished from her mother's home in Dewsbury, Yorks in February 2008.

She was discovered 24 days later following a £3.2million police search two miles away at the home of Michael Donovan, uncle of Matthews' boyfriend Craig Meehan having been drugged, tethered and hidden inside a divan bed.

Matthews, who had seven children with five fathers, and Donovan were sentenced to eight years over the kidnap plot.

The pair had allegedly been inspired by Maddie's disappearance and invented the kidnap plot to claim a reward for 'finding' her.

Matthews' best friend and former neighbour Julie, who has kept diaries of her prison visits, told MailOnline: 'Karen talked about Maddie and her family, the difference and unfairness of their social situations.

'She's never understood why British and Portuguese police haven't taken it any further and asks in her simple almost child-like state if it's because 'they're rich and posh and she's poor and common'. '

Mother-of-three Julie, who led the painstaking search for Shannon and still supports her friend said: 'I want to sit her down and ask 'Why?' She's not got the highest IQ and I wonder if she was coerced into doing something she didn't want to do.

'If someone said to her, 'Look, I'm skint, I need some money, help me', I think she was that daft she would have done anything.

'Karen was guilty and put her hands up but she wasn't the brains behind the plot to kidnap her daughter.

'I'm not excusing her in any way but I and the rest of the neighbourhood want to know the real reason for what happened. We want answers.

'I've kept a diary and have a record of all the times I visited her in jail but that one question remains unanswered.'

Matthews was thrown into the public glare earlier this month after controversial BBC1's The Moorside re-enacted the staged snatch. Campaigning shop assistant Julie was played by star Sheridan Smith.

But the hugely popular show came under attack, including from the Maddie's parents. And Matthews, now living at a secret location in the south of England, claims she has been bombarded with death threats.

She served just four years of her sentence, walking free in April 2012.

The McCanns, who are facing the agonising 10th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance in May, have been bombarded with social media and national radio rants in the past week.

Host Katie Hopkins claimed on her Sunday show on LBC Radio that their daughter would never be discovered. She said: 'Maddie was lost because she was left to be found.'

Just three days earlier on Friday glamour model Jodie Marsh posted in a Twitter rant that Maddie's parents should be searching for their daughter 'on their hands and knees digging up the bare earth' rather than be side-tracked and busying themselves suing people.'

Matthews criticised the McCanns, who were having tapas with friends close to their holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on the night Maddie disappeared. She and twins Sean and Amelie had been left asleep at 8.30pm in the ground-floor apartment, while Kate and Gerry dined in a restaurant 180ft away. The parents checked on the children throughout the evening, until Madeleine's mother discovered she was missing at 10pm.

A source close to the couple said: 'If it wasn't such a serious matter of a missing child it would almost be laughable. Two very minor celebrities and a person jailed for a crime against her own daughter dare to comment about a case they know nothing about.

'Kate and Gerry won't be saying anything to fuel this whirlwind of nonsense. They don't want to give these peoples' egos even more exposure.'

Today Britain's top police officer Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe will stand down having failed to fulfil his pledge to find Maddie to 'end her parents' torture'.

As the Scotland Yard chief steps down his force is still no closer to knowing what happened her despite vowing he was 'confident of resolving' the world's biggest missing child mystery.

Operation Grange, the inquiry launched in May 2011 to the spiralling £13million cost to the taxpayer, has failed to unearth any significant new clues.

A Met Police spokesperson said: 'We are cracking on.' But she refused to divulge if a final 'last throw of the dice' lead which Sir Bernard said would be investigated last summer has produced a shred of evidence.

The high-profile case is now being wound down. The Home Office has not allocated any extra cash after next month. A spokesperson said: 'Funding will continue until the end of this financial year. The resources required will be reviewed again at this point.'

THE HUNT GOES ON When did Madeleine McCann disappear, how old would she be today and what theories are there about her abduction? Here’s all you need to knowMcCanns prepped for new court battle against detective who claimed they faked Maddie’s kidnapBY NEAL BAKER AND JON LOCKETT 28th February 2017, 1:39 pm

If it wasn't such a serious matter of a missing child it would almost be laughable. A man jailed for crooking minor celebrities had managed to swindle the fund built to search for MMC without any comment of the "source close to the couple" nor any complaint of the said couple.

We are being bombarded! So it seems there is a forceful campaign to promote the neglect / abduction scenario. They are reaching out in whatever way they can to get this reinforced in the unsuspecting public's minds. Presumably to make it an easy and reasonable option for the Government to close the case without revealing the truth...

But will it work??

Again in the mail online:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4266966/Karen-Matthews-scathing-attack-Kate-McCann-Dreadful-Mum.html

Neglect and abduction, the public is being brain-washed into acceptance of these "facts" while we can almost hear Op.Grange winding down.Next will be "They are guilty of neglect but will be punished by their own guilt so, no further action." The soldiers are being lined up. Perhaps a response from the Portuguese Supreme Court is imminent.

Bombardments do work. Temporarily. You can't destroy the facts that an abduction never has been proved, that once there were 2 dogs that sniffed and barked the McCann mantra to pieces and that a certain supreme court in Portugal is still alive and 'frivolous'.

Right let's be frank Katie Hopkins isn't popular,Jodie marsh wannabe Jordon no disrespect,and now Mathews basically the msm are saying look at the type of people who question the McCann's.Sy will close in April a Ben Needham ending without a dead suspect or Madeleine's dead,but in it'll be wandered off picked up by unknown passer by done all we can end of.McCann's like Kerry will continue making money never giving up bs.And we'll here no more from them once media dies down. Portuguese will close the same time

I repeat: Bombardments do work. Temporarily. Wait until the dust has fallen down and look what stands intact. The question mark. It will always follow the pair and -sadly- the twins also. Always. There will be new sightings, new theories, new books, new blogs, new revelations ... But, back to now. Nothing has changed since the PJ files were put online, for everyone to see, read and interprete. And, don't forget: it 'happened' in Portugal, not in the UK.

That's the worry of everyone who wants / hopes that justice will prevail. I am one of them. WE, here and now, are trying to keep this 'case' in the spotlight. That's why the McCanns and / or the MSM continue to react. It is a war of attrition. And that alone is very significant.

No newspaper deserving that name commented ID's frivolous suggestion that the STJ had frivolously hence wrongly interpreted the MP filing order. It means that ID didn't address the Portuguese press agency but chose to directly alert the red tops, while she was casting doubt upon the highest instance of justice in Portugal. I'm gobsmacked.

Agreed, me also. This case is a catalyst.. what with published police files and the presence of the internet allowing us to discuss and be a 'voice', there is a chance that these factors combine to prevent a cover up.

After Op.Grange shuts up shop I genuinely fear that Kate McCann's book Madeleine will be made into a film, either for TV. like Moorside or for the big screen. With funds running low and no direct government investigation the timing is perfect to claim that all proceeds will help to continue the search and the film will " remind people to be on the lookout for Madeleine , who is still out there". The film would nail down neglected and abducted firmly in the minds of those who have never discovered the alternative truth. There was interest in such a venture in the early years but the McCanns refused. Now.. I really fear such a progamme could be in the offing.If they dont make it, it's only a matter of time til someone does, and they will want to control the slant.

Eoanthropus dawsoni, then Homo dawsoni or Homo piltdownensis, was officially considered to be the missing link between ape and human in 1912. It took more than 40 years to demonstrate it was a palaeontological hoax...

It just passed my mind, everybody knows but everybody forgets, any judgement is made in name of the people. When Moita Flores was heard as a witness, before sitting he turned towards the benches and greeted the public (2 or 3 persons, but anyway..)At least we expect, in such a situation where the STJ is at stake, that the complaint is correctly reported in the media. If the media weren't informed, shouldn't they at least protest ? In name of the people..

The sun is now (1.44 am 1/3/17) running a piece under the heading "Evil Karen Matthews" blasts the parents of Madeleine for leaving daughter alone." Interestingly, the article reveals on closer reading that this was said allegedly, to Julie Bushby AT THE TIME OF HER ARREST as a private comment. In other words years ago. Why is it news now years later? To keep pushing neglect!! Will anyone call out MSM and Sky, who have just joined in the pushing of this Matthews/McCann row on this fact? Please, pretty please!!!

The media is dead.It bled itself to death.They no longer pretend to tell the truth.The ignorant enable this by buying the lies.I think one could take a legal class action suit against them for patently peddling lies. There have been a few cases lately which have won in favour of providing truth. It has become clear that one has to get the law to perform its duty.Who is up for this?

The advertisers are monitored in that false or misleading claims in adverts can be complained about. Why are the press never subject to such scrutiny? Have there been successful complaints re falsehoods, other than apologies for individuals in libel or threatened libel actions?

Watching again one of Kate's whooshing curtains moments (tv) I was struck again by the cunning of this pair. She says "Madeleine's bed was here, just inside the door" but never mentions the fact that they had moved it there, out of its regular position,- not even to express regret that Matt had not noticed Madeleine missing at 9.30 precisely because of this action. The twin beds in both bedrooms of 5G had their headboards affixed to the wall. It's clear from P.J. photos of the parents' room that one bed was slid out of position to create a "double" bed, but in Madeleine's room this is craftily disguised by their having placed the chest of drawers beneath the headboard on the wall so that it all looks like one piece of furniture! There was no reason to do this as there was plenty of room for the cots where Madeleine's bed was moved to. After all, if it could accommodate a bed it was large enough for two cots. Presumably Madeleine would have slept in the bed closest to the door but that would have robbed Matt of his out of my line of vision excuse. I wonder when this furniture arranging took place? Did the P.J. ever question it do you know?

We find it perfectly natural for the beds to have been pushed to the walls respectively, to gain space in the centre for the cots.

Yes, there may have been sufficient space, but to have more is understandable.

The second thing is saying that it would be natural for Maddie to be sleeping in the bed nearest to door. We think nature states otherwise, as in the bed nearest window she would be the most visible by a parent in the living room.

Besides, we have shown that it was in that bed, the one near the window that Maddie did sleep in our post "Mistaken Identities"http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/10/mistaken-identities.html

I am a regular, not English speaking visitor of mainly 2 fora: yours and CMOMM, IMO the most credible interactive opinion sites regarding the on-and-ongoing (!) search for the truth about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, now almost a decade ago. My wish, but who am I, is that one day the most influential blogs and fora form one strong front against the miscommunication being waged around this case. Only united 'internet forces' can lead to the result that in september 2007 already should have been achieved. Respect for your on-and-ongoing tenacity.

About Gerry and his NHS money saving stunt, with a heartfelt thank you to Marian Greaves who wrote this brilliant piece:

I apologise profusely for being so bloody minded, but the post in MSM today that says Gerry has made this great discovery to save the Nhs millions surprised me, not usually announced like that so I decided to go digging to find out when he wrote the paper and what the outcome actually was.

What was very interesting was I couldn't find it easily, but I did find lots of published research papers on the same matter with the same end result from as far back as 2007, and many of them in 2012 but not one of them had his name on them.

So I searched all of the papers he has written and published including ones where he was just tagged on the end, Zilch, nada, not one that he has researched on that topic. Not to be defeated I searched the whole of the university hospital papers on that topic and voila, I found it. Or did I? What I did find was a press release posted the other day on the subject, saying he led a research group on the aortic stenosis and exercise and what he found, he did this as part of his fellowship for the institute. Now for those who are not familiar with academia, a fellowship is to be made a professor which is what we know he has done, and part of that process he needs to prove he has been actively involved in research and researching research.

So delving even deeper, I did eventually find the research paper which was published 13th Feb 2017. However it threw up lots of interesting facts, it was based on a two year study as part of his fellowship. Now fellowships are post-doctoral research grants to become a professor, you undertake research supervised by other eminent academics and then present it in a lecture to gain a professor post. This is exactly what this piece of work was for, he didn't lead it, he was tagged on the end of 21 other leading academics in the field to assist with the research for experience. There was no remit in the abstract or the study or conclusion to look at costings to the NHS of doing unnecessary surgery. Those permutations came from Gerry on his blog on the Uni site where he did two statements as press release on the study.

Why such low level studies especially as part of your training don't ordinarily warrant press release. Oh but hang on, the initial paper was presented for publication to a heart journal in early 2016 but then had to be re drafted and resubmitted later in the year before it was accepted, this is when he got his professor post, but the paper wasn't publicised until Feb this year.

So to say it looks like yet again he is trying to scam us is an understatement, He has written many academic papers but of course as it was part of his course this is probably one of the only ones where he is photographed lecturing on it so it is easy to make out it is his work, it wasn't it was part of the process he had to pass.

Now why put a press release on the Uni site about this, bigging him up and saying he led it, and his comments about saving money, all this happened in the last 3 yrs and was concluded over a year ago.

Oh hang on is there any significance with the dates, a very active February of the Supreme Justice Court and MSM printing he hadn't been cleared.

Mmm now let me see Team McCann, what can we do, I will put a press release out on that study to show how I am saving the NHS single handed £60 million.

Thank you Marion,I,ve been away with family celebrating my 77th,so may I say reading your research into Professor Gerry MaCanns "claims" ,for Me ,that really was the icing on the "birthday" cake!!! and Tex ,what a week of superb comments!! Tomorrow ,if your only half as good as this week its going to be well worth waiting for!! Thank you again Marion and Textusa .Lynn

Maybe it is just me.....question time tonight...when asked about Policing in regards to old time community policing...Ming Campbell(a Liberal) said..." you have to remember ther was no trafficking of human beings..."..i find it interesting that was his first comment!

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Total Pageviews

As of Jan 19 2019 we're waiting for Jules to own the blog.

MESSAGE to NEWCOMERS

This blog believes that concerning the MADDIE McCANN case the following happened:

- Maddie McCanndied in the early evening of May 3rd, 2007, in the Apartment 5A. We believe the death to have been accidental.

- At the time of Maddie's death the Praia da Luz's Ocean Club was hosting a large swinging holiday (which we believe took place in various locations in and around Praia da Luz - from Lagos to Sagres) in which the McCanns and friends were part of among many others.

- After Maddie's death a cover-up of unseen proportions and scope took place not to hide Maddie's death but with the main purpose of hiding the presence of swinging. To achieve that, Maddie's death had to be hidden.

- We don't believe there was any sort of negligence involved in the Maddie affair. We don't believe that T9 dined at Tapas Bar from Sunday to Wednesday. We think that on those nights they left their children with professional nannies - as did other guests - to go dine downtown PdL. On Thursday night they did use Tapas but that was simply part of what was to be "negligence"that was required to allow Maddie to be "abducted."

PJ Files

Anonymity

A MAJOR MINORITY

TRUTH is Self-Sustained

Think for yourself

Luz - THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED

PdL - What a place. Why does anyone holiday there?It's populated by black heroin addicts, people who rob apartments, gypsies who steal scrap and wood, scruffy moustachioed lurers of children, bogus charity collectors, suspicious street musicians, men lurking near phone booths, glasses man lurking in stairwells, blond men suspiciously lurking outside apartments, soothing couples entering apartments without permission, mysterious gangs of cleaners, men taking photographs of children on beaches... And to top it all, you have to queue for a table booking.Anonymous 11Nov 2013 12:22:00

Maybe because you can always enjoy an ice-cream in the rain?And a dip in an icy pool on arrival always attracts a crowd.Textusa 11Nov 2013 12:28:00

I like the Tapas fragile chairs and tables. They wobble nicely when cutting thick grilled steaks spilling the drinks all about! It's fun for the whole family!Anonymous 11Nov 2013 13:08:00

And how about the number of men seen carrying little blond girls in the street in the middle of the night?Anonymous 11Nov 2013 14:04:00

PdL - where families take it in turn to vomit each night, dog packs pursue and bite joggers, guests fall off catamarans, damage tendons playing tennis, have shaving accidents and stagger around apartments bleeding, domestic appliances need repair, shutters jam, baby monitors won't function at restaurants, travel cots can't be assembled.. sounds like THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED.Anonymous 12 Nov 2013 12:37:00

Child Catcher

Algarve - THE REGION OF THE DAMNED

“Algarve – Where Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’s Child Catcher found it ideal to roam the streets with his GYPSY-wagon:“There are children here somewhere. I can smell them. Come along, kiddie-winkies!”Algarve, the REGION OF THE DAMNED.”

Please Reconstruct I:

PJ's Declaration for Reopening Process:

"Madeleine McCann

As is the case with any situation in which a child goes missing, notwithstanding formal dismissal of the inquiry into her disappearance, and just as has always been publicly stated, the Polícia Judiciária never stopped paying close attention to any and all information that might possibly shed light on the whereabouts of the minor Madeleine McCann, the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and the identity of the perpetrator(s).

It was with this goal in mind that in March 2011 the National Director of the Polícia Judiciária entrusted a team of investigators from the North Directorate with the mission of reassessing, as a whole, the vast amount of information gathered during the inquiry, aimed at identifying data for which a more in-depth investigation might be useful and possible.

The reassessment which took place over the last two years and a half suggested new evidence to have surfaced, which, requiring the investigation to proceed, meets the requirements set out by section 279(1) of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure for reopening of the inquiry.

Accordingly, a request for reopening was made to the Public Prosecutor for the jurisdiction of Portimao, and approval granted by the latter. "

The Anne Guedes Transcriptions

Permanent Suggested Reading

Quote

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain

Revelations

"For the righteous, a revelation is a joyous event, the realization of a divine truth but for the wicked, revelations can be far more terrifying, when dark secrets are exposed and sinners are punished for their trespasses." Quote from the TV Series "Revenge" (T2 - Ep9)

Truth

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.Arthur Schopenhauer

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.Winston Churchill

The Revolution

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.George Orwell

The Revolution Goes Viral

"Once information networks become social, the implications are massive: truth can now travel faster than lies, and all propaganda becomes instantly flammable. Sure, you can try to insert spin, but the instantly networked consciousness of millions of people will set it right: they act like white blood cells against infection so that ultimately the truth, or something close to it, persists much longer than disinformation"The Guardian (04Jan12)

We must build dikes of courage to hold back the flood of fear. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts Winston Churchill

PRECIOUS, SO TRUE, WORDS

“One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.”

Kate McCann

(in MADELEINE, by Kate McCann, published in 2011 by Bantam Press, pg. 328)

Imagine...

"This says it all, Ms Loach hit the nail on the head!

"Ms Loach replied: “Imagine the public believing that you covered up your child’s death and then sought to make money out of it. They feel shame, humiliation and anguish."

Yes, that's exactly what we, the public, believe, because that's exactly what they did! And, their "shame, humiliation and anguish" are because they know we know!"

Comment posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Sep 16, 2013, 8:36:00 AM on "McCann vs Amaral Libel Trial" post referring to Mockumentary maker Emma Loach's testimony on the 1st day of said trial as one of McCann's defense witness.

Legal Disclaimer

This blog expresses exclusively the exchange of ideas and of opinions, between WHITE HATS, so is not responsible for the use, misuse or any form of interpretation (mainly misinterpretation) of its content, as although it uses a public medium, as is the internet, it's of PRIVATE nature, very much like any other conversation that takes place in a restaurant, pub or any other public location, where FREEDOM OF SPEECH is exercised.

Sound Explanation for Viciousness

Compliments from the Maggots' Lair:

- “…all the others pale into insignificance when compared to textusa.”

- “I think she should be on the streets and off the internet"

Chinagirl):

- “Disgusting piece of slime.”

(Raptor):

- “Yikes ! That's disgusting.”

(preciousramotswe):

- “You are right. It's a shambolic mess of vitriol and obtuseness. But then they always are. The one that some claimed finally 'proved' who was carrying who during the Smith sighting is a masterpiece of deliberately confused arguments in which labrynthine plots are used to cover how empty the central thesis is”

Out of the Blue (or... Black?)

Hey textusa How are you? well I hope,just thought I would tell you that there are videos about you on youtube, claiming you are an internet predator who stole her daughters identity and prowls the forums for young boys, they say you are welsh!! I think its a case of mistaken identity because are you not portuguese and male? Anyway great blog. keep it up.(Anon., Nov 13th, 05:43)

Conversation from the "Lightless Zone"

sabot:

“Wot Round Table?”

bonnybraes1:

“He/she/it invented a barking mad 'theory' about no-one actually having eaten in the Tapas, because he/she/it couldn't grasp the table arrangements.”

So, because textusa doesn't understand stuff like that, all the Tapas group, the staff, everyone, were lying.

OMG - you don't suppose textusa is actually Gonc, do you?”

sansouci:“Could be Bonny.

The 'theories' about the table and the watersports are really so far beyond bizarre, that I get the feeling that 'textusa' could actually be 'pisstaka'.”

BLACK BUT TRUE WORDS

“Because no-one is more vicious in their search for payback that those who realise they have allowed themselves to be taken for a fool” (A "boomerang" comment left by an Anonymous (Insane?) at Sep 22, 2012 2:06:00 PM)

Insane's IMPORTANT Comments

“…How would any of you idiots like it if your name came into the public domain because you were witness to a crime, and some mad bitch set up a site in which she called you a liar, and claimed you were actually involved in the crime you witnessed? Just ponder on that for a moment”

Aug 28, 2011 9:27:00 AM

“…Where is your sense of shame or decency in accusing innocent witnesses of being involved in covering up the death of a child?

I see no shame or decency on here - just an utter indifference to the rights or feelings of others.

I notice no-one had the balls to answer my question about how you would feel if this was done to you - if you were a witness to a crime and some deranged cow on the internet accused you of being involved. You are all a complete disgrace.”

Aug 28, 2011 1:09:00 PM

FOOT IN THE MOUTH DISEASE

Insane (Nov 14, 2012 11:37:00 PM):

Oh look here - amazing what one can find out by means of a couple of emails to Mark Warner.

You are toast, lady. Finished.

I am going to enjoy this more than is actually decent.

Textusa (Nov 15, 2012 8:50:00 AM):

Well it seems that you're quite privy with the Ocean Club aren't you?

Them giving YOU the information about their own mails?

And you threatening us based on information that YOU apparently got from the Ocean Club.

That's really interesting, isn't it?

Insane (Nov 15, 2012 10:47:00 PM):

One thing I really like about Mark Warner is how helpful their staff are. Really go the extra mile for someone needing information. IYKWIM

:)

Textusa (Nov 16, 2012 11:17:00 AM):

Thank you for confirming that Mark Warner Staff are supplying YOU with information pertaining the Maddie Affair.

Insane's Moment of Rare Beauty

“It would be more suspicious if every account tallied. Police expect to find contradictions, don't tell me you did not know this?” (Nov 22, 2012 3:38:00 PM), when providing an opinion on contradictions from various statements in the PJ Files.

“I don't give a rat's arse about the statements which tally too closely - of course some of them tally too closely, there is an in depth analysis of them on my blog, the one you are not invited to.” (Nov 22, 2012 4:08:00 PM), when, exactly 30 minutes later, provides an opposite opinion, in this case about the fact that some of Tapas' Staff's statements tally too closely.

Insane the Entrepeneur?

"I'd love to stay, but I have a report to write, and it won't do itself, will it?" (Nov 29, 2012 8:14:00 PM)Insane the Disruptor, a new profession shown inNew Career Opportunities

Insane's Proposal for a New Legal Disclaimer

Textusa's new disclaimer. Please ignore all previous versions

''This blog expresses exclusively the exchange of ideas and opinions between people who have sniffed WAY too many solvents, and the imaginary people who live at the bottom of their garden, and so is not responsible for the enormous fines, possible imprisonment, or lifelong incarceration in a mental hospital which may result from it's content, as although it is on the interclickyweb, it is of a private nature, accompanied only by the voices in their heads, very much like any other conversation which takes place in a psychiatric ward between people rocking backwards and forwards in their seat and eating the wallcoverings, where FREEDOM OF SPEECH is exercised in the half hour per day of free association which the inmates are allowed.''Comment NOT published but submitted on Aug 22, 2011 10:17:00 PM

Kate's Round Table

INSANE'S BLOG

We waited so long for the link...

A possible explanation for the wait: "As I have made perfectly clear, you and your sort will never have access to my blog. We are particular about who we invite, and would not include screaming harpies and riff-faff like yourself."unpublished comment from Insane at Nov 23, 2012 10:55:00 AM

Then, a glimmer of hope?“Publishing elsewhere the posts Textusa refuses to publish is also appropriate - and also gives you fools a chance to read what she withholds from you, knowing that you would desert her if you were aware of how much trouble she leads you into.” (Nov 29, 2012 12:40:00 PM)

No, it wasn’t to be so… :“For the last time, you will never be provided with a link for my blog - you are not welcome there and will never be given access”(Nov 29, 2012 1:38:00 PM)